Search
document

Document text Analytics

HAUSCHILDT CASE

Doc ref: 10486/83 • ECHR ID: 001-55508

Document date: February 13, 1991

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

HAUSCHILDT CASE

Doc ref: 10486/83 • ECHR ID: 001-55508

Document date: February 13, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of

Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to

as "the Convention"),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of

Human Rights in the Hauschildt case delivered on 24 May l989 and

transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application

against Denmark lodged with the European Commission of Human

Rights on 27 October l982 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the

Convention by Mr Mogens Hauschildt, a Danish national, who

complained that the courts that had considered criminal charges

brought against him were not impartial;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by

the Commission on l6 October l987;

Whereas in its judgment of 24 May l989 the Court:

- rejected by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the

Government's preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of

domestic remedies;

- held by twelve votes to five that there had been a breach

of Article 6, paragraph l (art. 6-1), of the Convention;

- held unanimously that Denmark was to pay to the

applicant, for costs and expenses, £20 000;

- rejected unanimously the remainder of the claim for just

satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of

Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of

the Convention;

Having invited the Goverment of Denmark to inform it of

the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment

of 24 May l989, having regard to its obligation under Article 53

(art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the

Committee of Ministers, the Government of Denmark gave the

Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of

the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this

resolution,

Declares, after having taken note of the information

supplied by the Government of Denmark, that it has exercised its

functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this

case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (91)9

Information provided by the Government of Denmark

during the examination of the Hauschildt case

by the Committee of Ministers

Sections 60 to 62 of the Administration of Justice Act

were amended by an Act of l3 June l990 which came into force on

l July l990.

According to section 60, paragraph 2, as amended, no

judge who has taken pre-trial decisions concerning remand in

custody in pursuance of Section 762, paragraph 2, of the

Administration of Justice Act (particularly confirmed suspicion

of the prisoner's guilt) or concerning certain other

investigative steps according to this act may act as trial or

appeal judge in the same case.

An exception is made for trials under the special simplified

procedure provided for in Sections 925 and 925.a where the

accused has confessed the crime and for cases which involve no

decision on the evidence of the prisoner's guilt.

Furthermore, a general clause concerning the impartiality

of judges was introduced as Section 6l of the Administration of

Justice Act. According to this provision, no person shall act

as judge in a case when there are other circumstances apart from

those listed in Section 60, paragraph 2, that are liable to call

the complete impartiality of the said judge into question.

Concerning the payment of the sum of £20 000 awarded by

the Court to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses, it

is recalled that the applicant was found guilty of fraud and

embezzlement on six counts involving approximately 45 million

Danish crowns and that according to Danish law a person convicted

in a criminal case has to reimburse the state the trial costs as

well as the costs incurred by the detention on remand if he has

the financial means, or whenever he gets such means.

In its judgment of l November l982, the Copenhagen City

Court ordered the applicant to pay all the costs relating to his

trial. These costs amount to a total of over 3 million Danish

crowns which the applicant has not reimbursed to this day.

In the specific circumstances of the present case and in

view of the fact that the sum awarded by the Court relates to

costs and expenses and not to any pecuniary or non-pecuniary

damage suffered by the applicant, it is the Government's view

that the sum of £20 000 awarded by the Court should be set up

against the sum still owed by the applicant to the authorities

of Denmark.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant